If you assume that you exist and that the world is basically as you perceive it (what any sane person must do for practical reasons) then you could easily say 'definitely'.
I actually expected this answer from you, Dustin. Not surprisingly, you've made another logical error. This time it's an argument from incredulity. I'll explain it to you. Slowly.
Cbish had said that if the stars lined up to spell something, that would be proof enough for him of god. You answered that sufficiently advanced aliens could have done it.
Then you said that the fossil record proves evolution. When it was pointed out that sufficiently advanced aliens could have planted the fossils, you responded that your statement is true if we accept "that the world is basically as you perceive it."
But what is it that you accept when you accept that the world is basically as you perceive it? I doubt that you personally have perceived many fossils in person. You have not studied them (and neither have I). You have accepted them as true because other people have said they are true and these people seem like a trustworthy sort. What they've said seems to make sense to you.
Why do they seem trustworthy? Why do their theories seem to make sense? Probably, the reason is that you are familiar with what they say and most people generally accept it as true.
How do you know the earth is round? You've never personally perceived the curvature of the earth. There are relatively few people who have been up the 100,000 feet necessary to do so. Are there 600,000 people on earth right now who have flown into space? Even that many would mean that 99.99% of living humans have never perceived that the earth is curved.
And what about the stars rearranging to spell out a message? Why is it that this does not prove the existence of god sufficiently for you? The reason is that you are not
familiar with it. You are
incredulous of it. If science textbooks talked about a message written in distant stars that could be seen by sufficiently large telescopes, if there were pictures of the message, if scientists all agreed that it was a genuine message from god, if all the people on the planet all agreed that this was real, if mankind agreed that this was sufficient proof of god - would it be sufficient for you then?
See, you don't believe fossils prove evolution because of the evidence of your senses. You believe it because you've been told it. And unless you have a Ph.D. in paleontology, don't tell me differently.
So, once again you have founded your argument on a logical error. It's not surprising. You have absolutely no understanding of logic whatsoever.
We don't need the "Entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change. This is a creationist argument you're making here!
Of course we don't need the "entire fossil record" to show examples of evolutionary change. I never said we did. The fossils we have are all evidence of evolution. They are evidence that probably tends to make the theory of evolution more true.
You are once again making the mistake of equivocation. "Evidence" is not synonymous with "proof."
I said showing me the known fossil record would not
prove evolution; you pretended I said showing me the known fossil record would not
be evidence of evolution.
They are two different things.
Really. Just stop. Your stupidity is giving me a nosebleed.
I'm backing this horse from the Lacone stables. 
